Like many of you I am of the belief that for the most part we should be responsible for our own actions, especially if those actions are irresponsible.

Five mimosas, four martinis, and a joint

Christina Demirelli and her friend and roommate, both in their mid-twenties, drank several alcoholic beverages at a café and then a bar in Newport Beach. Demirelli consumed four to five mimosas and four gin martinis and smoked marijuana till, according to the court case, she was in a “state of significant intoxication.” (0.30% blood alcohol level) The two friends were asked to leave the restaurant and for some unknown reason wandered into a nearby parking structure in Fashion Island owned by The Irvine Company. They walked to the upper floor, Demirelli sat on a concrete perimeter wall, then fell backwards sustaining serious injuries including a traumatic spinal cord injury. She had no recollection of the fall.

---

---

It wasn’t my fault

Demirelli sued The Irvine Company claiming premises liability. That theory failed because the perimeter wall was built to building code standards as was the lighting in the parking garage.

---

---

Demirelli’s second theory of liability was that The Irvine Company had assumed a duty to her by hiring a security company charged with detecting and stopping horseplay according to the Fashion Island Code of Conduct. In other words, because the Irvine Company had hired security to patrol the parking garage, they should have discovered Demirelli and her friend

engaging in what was described as “displays of nonsensical horseplay.” Such a legal claim is called “negligent undertaking (hiring).”

By hiring a security company was The Irvine Company legally responsible to protect Demirelli from her own antics?

Court of Appeal rules against drinker

The trial court ruled for Demirelli determining the security company should have observed Demirelli “doing cartwheels” and acting intoxicated. In fact, the chief security officer was in the breakroom at the time of the incident.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned noting there is no liability if someone comes onto your property and is injured from a danger which was obvious. “A plaintiff cannot use his own voluntarily induced state of intoxication to claim that he was unaware of the obvious peril…”

As to the “negligent undertaking” claim, the court of appeal ruled that just because a parking garage owner (or supermarket or bar owner) hires security does not automatically make the property owner liable. As it should be.

The Irvine Company’s hiring of security for the parking garage did not expand the company’s liability exposure. There is no liability.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Jim Porter is a retired attorney from the Porter Simon law firm. These are Jim’s personal opinions. Porter Simon has offices in Truckee, California and Reno, Nevada. Porter Simon’s practice areas include: real estate, development, construction, business, HOA’s, contracts, family law, personal injury, accidents, mediation and other transactional matters. Jim may be reached at jameslporterjr@gmail.com. Like us on Facebook. ©2024